US dataswitch to UK
Neurologists
interviewing patients to obtain information, advising other physicians on the treatment of neurological problems and performing specialized treatments in areas. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: examining patients to obtain information about functional status of areas is work software can't reach.
What shifts is preparing, maintaining or reviewing records that include patients' histories, neurological examination findings, treatment plans or outcomes: the overhead at the edges, not the middle you trained for.
Your week, as this page understands it
Diagnose, manage, and treat disorders and diseases of the brain, spinal cord, and peripheral nerves, with a primarily nonsurgical focus. The job title says “neurologists”. The real job is the part underneath: examining patients to obtain information about functional status of areas. That is the thing someone has to be right about.
The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But neurologists is not one task. It is 24 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is examining patients to obtain information about functional status of areas, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 4%
- changing shape
- 31%
- staying human
- 65%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 30 out of 100 (24–36 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 24 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.
How we know this
What is measured: Every published task statement for neurologists is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.
How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.
Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-05. Read the full method.
Your job, task by task
These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
Shifting to AI
1 taskTasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.
Preparing, maintaining or reviewing records that include patients' histories, neurological examination findings, treatment plans or outcomes
This is reading one thing and writing another: records in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Prepare, maintain, or review records that include patients' histories, neurological examination findings, treatment plans, or outcomes.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Clinical records are structured writing that note-taking software already drafts to a usable standard.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Changing shape
7 tasksTasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.
Ordering or interpreting results of laboratory analyses of patients' blood or cerebrospinal fluid
The software now makes the first pass at results of laboratory analyses of patients' blood, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Order or interpret results of laboratory analyses of patients' blood or cerebrospinal fluid.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 47 out of 100 (43–51 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Interpreting blood and spinal fluid results against reference ranges is documented, though the order comes from a doctor.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing treatment plans based on diagnoses and on evaluation of factors
The software now makes the first pass at treatment plans, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Develop treatment plans based on diagnoses and on evaluation of factors, such as age and general health, or procedural risks and costs.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 40 out of 100 (33–47 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Treatment plans follow published guidelines software applies well, but the plan has to be a doctor’s.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Communicating with other health care professionals regarding patients' conditions and care
The software now makes the first pass at other health care professionals regarding patients' conditions, but the part that matters is a person saying it and standing behind it. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Communicate with other health care professionals regarding patients' conditions and care.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 46 out of 100 (39–53 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Handover notes and updates can be drafted automatically, though colleagues want the neurologist’s own read.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Interpreting the results of neuroimaging studies
The software now makes the first pass at the results of neuroimaging studies, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Interpret the results of neuroimaging studies, such as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT), and Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scans.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 47 out of 100 (40–54 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Image-reading software is strong on brain scans, though the report must come from a qualified doctor.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Referring patients to other health care practitioners
The software now makes the first pass at patients, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Refer patients to other health care practitioners as necessary.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 48 out of 100 (41–55 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Matching a patient to the right specialist follows documented criteria, with the referral made by the doctor.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Staying human
16 tasksTasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.
Examining patients to obtain information about functional status of areas
This work happens in the physical world: patients, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Examine patients to obtain information about functional status of areas, such as vision, physical strength, coordination, reflexes, sensations, language skills, cognitive abilities, and mental status.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: A neurological exam means testing a patient’s reflexes, strength and sensation by hand.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Performing or interpreting the outcomes of procedures or diagnostic tests
This work happens in the physical world: the outcomes of procedures, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Perform or interpret the outcomes of procedures or diagnostic tests, such as lumbar punctures, electroencephalography, electromyography, and nerve conduction velocity tests.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Reading the traces suits software well, but performing a lumbar puncture or nerve study does not.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Prescribing or administering medications, such as anti-epileptic drugs and monitoring patients for behavioral and cognitive side effects
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for medications, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Prescribe or administer medications, such as anti-epileptic drugs, and monitor patients for behavioral and cognitive side effects.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (16–30 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Standard drug choices are documented, but only a licensed doctor can prescribe and judge the side effects.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Interviewing patients to obtain information
The value here is that a specific person handles patients and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Interview patients to obtain information, such as complaints, symptoms, medical histories, and family histories.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 34 out of 100 (30–38 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Structured questioning and note-taking software already produces a usable history, though patients open up to a person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Show the other 14 tasks
Ordering supportive care services, such as physical therapy, specialized nursing care and social services
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at supportive care services, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Order supportive care services, such as physical therapy, specialized nursing care, and social services.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 48 out of 100 (41–55 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Deciding which support services a patient needs follows documented criteria, though the order is a doctor’s.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Participating in continuing education activities to maintain and expand competence
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at continuing education activities, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Participate in continuing education activities to maintain and expand competence.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 46 out of 100 (42–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Continuing education is reading, courses and summaries, which software supports very well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Advising other physicians on the treatment of neurological problems
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for other physicians, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Advise other physicians on the treatment of neurological problems.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 39 out of 100 (32–46 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Treatment advice is documented, but other doctors are asking a named specialist to stand behind it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Participating in neuroscience research activities
staying humanThe ratings behind this row put neuroscience research activities well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Participate in neuroscience research activities.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 37 out of 100 (30–44 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Software drafts and analyzes research well, but designing the study and standing behind it is the researcher’s.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Diagnosing neurological conditions based on interpretation of examination findings
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for neurological conditions, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Diagnose neurological conditions based on interpretation of examination findings, histories, or test results.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 27 out of 100 (20–34 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Software can shortlist likely diagnoses, but the deciding exam findings and the diagnosis rest with the neurologist.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Counseling patients or others on the background of neurological disorders
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for patients, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Counsel patients or others on the background of neurological disorders including risk factors, or genetic or environmental concerns.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Risk-factor and genetics information is abundantly documented, but patients act on it because a doctor explains it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Coordinating neurological services with other health care team activities
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles neurological services and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Coordinate neurological services with other health care team activities.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Scheduling and joining up services is partly automatable, but it runs on people coordinating with each other.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing training to medical students or staff members
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: medical students, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Provide training to medical students or staff members.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Teaching students and staff depends on demonstration and feedback with real patients.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Informing patients or families of neurological diagnoses and prognoses
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for patients, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Inform patients or families of neurological diagnoses and prognoses, or benefits, risks and costs of various treatment plans.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (14–22 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Difficult news and treatment choices land on families through a doctor they can question and trust.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Identifying and treating major neurological system diseases and disorders
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: major neurological system diseases, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Identify and treat major neurological system diseases and disorders, such as central nervous system infection, cranio spinal trauma, dementia, and stroke.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 15 out of 100 (8–22 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Treating stroke, infection or dementia mixes documented protocols with hands-on care only a licensed doctor gives.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Performing specialized treatments in areas
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: specialized treatments, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Perform specialized treatments in areas such as sleep disorders, neuroimmunology, neuro-oncology, behavioral neurology, and neurogenetics.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (4–18 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: These specialist treatments combine hands-on care with decisions only a licensed doctor can make.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Supervising medical technicians in the performance of neurological diagnostic or therapeutic activities
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: medical technicians, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Supervise medical technicians in the performance of neurological diagnostic or therapeutic activities.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 7 out of 100 (0–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Supervising technicians during procedures means being present and legally answerable for what happens.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Prescribing or administering treatments, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation, vagus nerve stimulation and deep brain stimulation
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: treatments, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Prescribe or administer treatments, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation, vagus nerve stimulation, and deep brain stimulation.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 4 out of 100 (0–8 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Stimulation treatments are delivered to a patient with equipment by a licensed doctor.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Determining brain death using accepted tests and procedures
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: brain death, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Determine brain death using accepted tests and procedures.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 4 out of 100 (0–8 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Declaring brain death is a bedside examination the law reserves for a qualified physician.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $248,560a year, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.bls-oews, 2025 · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
How we know this
Source: bls-oews
Reference period: May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
Rounding: Shown as published.
- People doing this job
- 10,590in the US, 2025.bls-oews · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.
Why this is shifting
The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: results of laboratory analyses of patients' blood in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: preparing, maintaining and ordering or interpreting results of laboratory analyses of patients' blood or cerebrospinal fluid. What it cannot do is be answerable: patients need a named person the rules will accept, and software cannot be that person. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.
Your move
Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend
Start with what does not change: examining patients to obtain information about functional status of areas is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.
So, given all that: 4% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 31% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 65% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 24 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
So the thing worth your attention is not the job going away. It is the layer around it. Preparing, maintaining or reviewing records that include patients' histories is the part turning into software, and being the person who understands that layer is worth money.
This week: one thing
Ask the one question. Find whoever is bringing new software into your workplace (the manager, the office, whoever runs the system) and ask them what it is meant to do to results of laboratory analyses of patients' blood, and what it is not meant to touch. Ten minutes, this week, before anyone decides it for you.
- What you end up holding
- a straight answer about what is actually being rolled out, and when
- How long it takes
- ten minutes
If there’s nobody obvious to ask, or you’d rather not ask your manager: Put the same question to your union rep, your shift lead or the person who has been there longest, in person, over a break. Same ten minutes, same answer, and you will usually get a straighter one. Write down what they say. The note is the artifact, and it tells you whether the outcomes of procedures are in scope or not. Nothing to log into, no license needed.
Over the next 90 days
Get inside the tool rollout rather than waiting for it. Over the next ninety days, ask to be in the group that tests, checks or signs off whatever new system arrives near ordering or interpreting results of laboratory analyses of patients' blood or cerebrospinal fluid. It is usually an unglamorous seat that nobody fights for, and it is the one that decides how the software is used on your job rather than to it.
Over the next 12 months
On this evidence I would not retrain out of this job, and I will say that plainly rather than hedge it. The task list here is dominated by work that stays with a person. What I would do with a year is get formally recognised for the layer around it (the systems, the compliance, the planning), so you are the one who understands the software instead of the one it is done to. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.
The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them
I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.
I checked the 12 nearest US occupations to neurologists (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was genetic counselors: only about 9% of its durable work is work you already do and it pays 59.8% less. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 30/100 here, with only 4% of the task list in the top band, and “examine patients to obtain information about functional status of areas” is not work that hands over cleanly. None of them beats deepening what you already have.
How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.
3 moves I checked and rejected
These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.
Genetic Counselors
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already interview patients to obtain information, and their equivalent is to interview patients or review medical records to obtain comprehensive patient or family medical…. Across both published task lists that is about 9% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 9% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $100,040 against your $248,560, 59.8% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Family Medicine Physicians
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already communicate with other health care professionals regarding patients' conditions and care, and their equivalent is to train residents, medical students, and other health care professionals. Across both published task lists that is about 8% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 8% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
Healthcare Diagnosing or Treating Practitioners, All Other
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already interview patients to obtain information, and their equivalent is to interview patients to document symptoms and health histories. Across both published task lists that is about 7% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 7% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $115,210 against your $248,560, 53.6% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
What I’d stop worrying about
A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.
The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 4% of its task weight, across 24 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The headlines about your trade disappearing
They are usually about the technology, not the timetable. Changes to work like examining patients to obtain information about functional status of areas arrive through rules, insurance and money, slowly and visibly. This page tracks the task evidence and will move when it moves.
Retraining out of a job that is holding up
On this evidence I would not spend money leaving. Spend it on the layer around the job instead: the tools, the paperwork, the planning. That is where the change actually is.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.
You are reading the United States figures
The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Specialist medical practitioners and consultants is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.
Switch to the United Kingdom page →partial match
The other groups this work is counted across:
In UK official statistics this job is counted as Specialist medical practitioners and consultants and Generalist medical practitioners. Pay is shown separately for each of those groups (medians cannot be averaged together), while the task list and the scores on this page are for this group only.
Your route through this
Where to go next, and what it costs
Free, and complete
The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
Free
Why there is no community here
Collab365, who build this site, run paid Spaces for a small number of subjects, and none of them is built for this job. We are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.
So the free services listed on this page are the whole answer, and it is the same answer we would give a friend.
Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for neurologists launches. Nothing else.
That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.
We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.
No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.
Questions people ask about this job
- Will AI replace Neurologists?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 24 official task statements scored for Neurologists (United States, SOC 29-1217), 4% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 30 out of 100 (range 24–36, band: low). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
- Which tasks in “Neurologists” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Prepare, maintain, or review records that include patients' histories, neurological examination findings, treatment plans, or outcomes” (66/100, high); “Refer patients to other health care practitioners as necessary” (48/100, partial); “Order supportive care services, such as physical therapy, specialized nursing care, and social services” (48/100, partial). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
- Which tasks in “Neurologists” stay human?
- About 65% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Examine patients to obtain information about functional status of areas, such as vision, physical strength, coordination, reflexes, sensations, language skil…” (0/100, minimal); “Determine brain death using accepted tests and procedures” (4/100, minimal); “Prescribe or administer treatments, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation, vagus nerve stimulation, and deep brain stimulation” (4/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
- What should someone working in “Neurologists” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 4% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 65% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
- How is the AI exposure score for Neurologists calculated?
- Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 24 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.
Where these numbers come from
Worth knowing about these figures
- The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
- Task statements
- onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
- Task weights
- onet-db (im-rt)
- Scores
- Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
- Pay and employment
- bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))
Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.
The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.
The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.
Using these figures?
Cite this
Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.
Plain text
Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).
BibTeX
@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
title = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
author = {{Collab365}},
year = {2026},
url = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
note = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published . Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.